continued efforts to apologize tyrants, murderous thugs, and dictators.

Umm... I'm confused, about which side you're referring too... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Nice dodge there. I never said no company would profit from the war. Other companies lost revenues because of a decrease in state side business. That wasn't your claim. You said the war itself was fought so that these companies could profit. i.e. that that was the reason the U.S. and allies went to war in the first place.

Sure, guess which industry is lobbying most? It's the military industry and it's oil industry - they have bought most of the politicians. Imagine what a loss the "poor" military industry would suffer if there were no war anymore. They would be forced to produce mostly civil products, and you just cannot make as much profit of civil stuff as of weapons... And how little profit the "poor" oil industry could make if they were no fighter jets and bombers, no tanks, no missiles, no air plane carriers which need more fuel than all of the cars in the States together...
As your President Bush stated himself one and a half year ago: Oil (hence: profit) is a reason why the US military stays in Iraq.

Bush Cites Oil As Reason to Stay in Iraq
By Peter Baker
The Washington Post

Sunday 05 November 2006

Greeley, Colo.- During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush and his aides sternly dismissed suggestions that the war was all about oil. "Nonsense," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared. "This is not about that," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

Now, more than 3 1/2 years later, someone else is asserting that the war is about oil - President Bush.

As he barnstorms across the country campaigning for Republican candidates in Tuesday's elections, Bush has been citing oil as a reason to stay in Iraq. If the United States pulled its troops out prematurely and surrendered the country to insurgents, he warns audiences, it would effectively hand over Iraq's considerable petroleum reserves to terrorists who would use it as a weapon against other countries.

"You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources," he said at a rally here Saturday for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). "And then you can imagine them saying, 'We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following. And the following would be along the lines of, well, 'Retreat and let us continue to expand our dark vision.' "

Bush said extremists controlling Iraq "would use energy as economic blackmail" and try to pressure the United States to abandon its alliance with Israel. At a stop in Missouri on Friday, he suggested that such radicals would be "able to pull millions of barrels of oil off the market, driving the price up to $300 or $400 a barrel."

Oil is not the only reason Bush offers for staying in Iraq, but his comments on the stump represent another striking evolution of his argument on behalf of the war. The slogan of "no blood for oil" became a rallying cry for antiwar activists prior to the March 2003 invasion and angered administration officials. "There are certain things like that, myths, that are floating around," Rumsfeld told Steve Kroft of CBS Radio in November 2002. "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Saturday that Bush's latest argument does not reflect a real shift. "We're still not saying we went into Iraq for oil. That's not true," he said. "But there is the realistic strategic concern that if a country with such enormous oil reserves and the corresponding revenues you can derive from that is controlled by essentially a terrorist organization, it could be destabilizing for the region."

Some analysts, however, said that Bush is exaggerating the impact of Iraq's oil production on world markets. Iraq has more than 112 billion barrels of oil, the second-largest proven reserves in the world. But it currently pumps just 2.3 million barrels per day and exports 1.6 million of that, according to the State Department's tracking report on the country, still short of what it produced before the invasion.

That represents a fraction of the 85 million barrels produced around the world each day and less than the surplus capacity of Saudi Arabia and other Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, meaning in a crisis they could ramp up their wells to make up for the shortfall, analysts said. The United States also has 688 million barrels of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, enough to counter a disruption of Iraqi oil for 14 months.

Even if Iraq did not sell oil to the United States, it would not matter as long as it sold it to someone because the international market is fungible and what counts is the overall supply and overall demand, according to analysts. If Iraq cut off exports altogether, it still would not have the dire effect on the world market that Bush predicts, they said. The price of oil began rising dramatically in 2002 as the confrontation with Iraq loomed, but many factors contributed, including increasing demand by China and problems in Nigeria, Venezuela and elsewhere.

The world, in fact, has already seen what would happen if Iraqi oil were cut off entirely, as Bush suggests radicals might do. Iraq effectively stopped pumping oil altogether in the months immediately after the invasion. And yet the price of oil has never topped $80, much less come anywhere near the $300 or $400 a barrel Bush cited as a possible consequence of a radical Iraqi regime withholding the country's oil.

"They're a minor exporter," said Edward Morse, managing director and chief energy economist at Lehman Brothers. "They have potential to be a greater exporter. But it's ludicrous to suggest someone could hold the world hostage by withholding oil from the market, especially a regime that needs money."

Disruptions of oil supplies certainly affect the markets, but not as drastically as Bush suggested, Morse said. He noted that Venezuela's capacity has fallen by 1 million barrels a day since President Hugo Chavez came to power there and yet it has not given him any geopolitical leverage over the United States even though he is an avowed Bush foe. But Morse agreed that Iran, for example, could "play mischief" because it already effectively controls much of Iraqi oil in the southern part of the country.

Fratto, the White House spokesman, argued that even if radicals could not move the markets dramatically with Iraqi oil, they would use the country as a base to topple other governments in the Middle East such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which would give them "a lot more oil to blackmail with."

---

Account frozen...

As has been repeatedly explained to you many times oil, as a strategic factor in the region, is important Just as banana plantations are of strategic importance in other areas of the world. Don't you realize that 'staying in Iraq' to stabilize the region (with oil being an element of its stability) is NOT the same as your silly claim that we WENT TO WAR SO THE BIG BUSINESSES COULD PROFIT.

You make claim after claim about Bush or this government or that being 'bought' by this company or that. I sure wish you'd prove that. CNN would have you on immediately.

You'll say anything to malign the American system in general or Big Bad Bush specifically evidence, logic, reason, and polemical protocols be damned. I remind myself when reading your posts that you grew up in E.Germany with Stasi files stored about you by the secret police and informants and still routinely advocate that type of system vs the freer ones found elsewhere.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

You make claim after claim

Not me, I just heckle... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

As has been repeatedly explained to you many times oil, as a strategic factor in the region, is important Just as banana plantations are of strategic importance in other areas of the world. Don't you realize that 'staying in Iraq' to stabilize the region (with oil being an element of its stability) is NOT the same as your silly claim that we WENT TO WAR SO THE BIG BUSINESSES COULD PROFIT.

You make claim after claim about Bush or this government or that being 'bought' by this company or that. I sure wish you'd prove that. CNN would have you on immediately.

You'll say anything to malign the American system in general or Big Bad Bush specifically evidence, logic, reason, and polemical protocols be damned. I remind myself when reading your posts that you grew up in E.Germany with Stasi files stored about you by the secret police and informants and still routinely advocate that type of system vs the freer ones found elsewhere.

Awww... I malign the USA in general? When have I done that? Btw.: There were enough media when the invasion in Iraq started which claimed that it is just for oil (That's why these anxious denials by Rumsfeld and the MIC in general back then). Sorry that I don't remember any articles from the beginning of this invasion. But I remember the slogans "No Blood for Oil!"
You don't believe yourself that CNN (which was founded by a reactionary extreme-capitalist who now is the largest land-owner in the entire USA), a network only extremely right-wing people can honestly call liberal, would say anything contrary to the "official opinion" sold by the mighty? A network where the ups and downs of the Stock Exchange are more important than foreign policy? Puuuleeeease...
Abnd abut "Big Bad Bush" - LOL... every one who is not blinded by the private media knows that Georgie-boy is only as mighty as his buddies, the businessmen in the lobbies, let him be.
Well, I would take no bet that there is more 5% of the people in any Western government (also in the US Congress) who are not open for an "extra donation" even though that's bound to a condition...
Big companies support the politicians, then they expect that the music is played which they payed for.., like: Decide as we want or you don't get these donations anymore, or: we supported you financially during your rally, now we expect a favor from you - that's normal for capitalism.

---

Account frozen...

Snip
I remind myself when reading your posts that you grew up in E.Germany with Stasi files stored about you by the secret police and informants and still routinely advocate that type of system vs the freer ones found elsewhere.

Where is the "freer" system ?

All the members of the "coalition of the willing" under the guise of "protecting their citizens" have enacted "anti-terrorist" and "homeland security" legislation that reads like it came straight out of the KGB handbook ! This legislation allows 4AM knocks on the door and removes restrictions on wire tapping and monitoring of personal conversations and email. It also limits the information that can be given to the suspect's legal counsel and forbids the suspect, their family and media from publically discussing the case.

The suspect can be held without trial for an extended period and the premise of "Innocent until proven guilty" has been thrown out the window. Even torture has been legitimised by changing the definition of the word and that's straight out of "1984"

Once upon a time the West *could* claim to be "free" but now it is as repressive as any Communist nation was at the height of the Cold War.

Orwell must be snickering in his grave

Brodo

Snip
I remind myself when reading your posts that you grew up in E.Germany with Stasi files stored about you by the secret police and informants and still routinely advocate that type of system vs the freer ones found elsewhere.

Where is the "freer" system ?

All the members of the "coalition of the willing" under the guise of "protecting their citizens" have enacted "anti-terrorist" and "homeland security" legislation that reads like it came straight out of the KGB handbook ! This legislation allows 4AM knocks on the door and removes restrictions on wire tapping and monitoring of personal conversations and email. It also limits the information that can be given to the suspect's legal counsel and forbids the suspect, their family and media from publically discussing the case.

The suspect can be held without trial for an extended period and the premise of "Innocent until proven guilty" has been thrown out the window. Even torture has been legitimised by changing the definition of the word and that's straight out of "1984"

Once upon a time the West *could* claim to be "free" but now it is as repressive as any Communist nation was at the height of the Cold War.

Orwell must be snickering in his grave

Brodo

I would have to agree 100% with you. It is frightening how information is being used and abused. In the UK, it is now possible, for a CCTV operator to basically land you with a 'Parking Fine'! These operators are 'civvies', but through them, your VRN (Vehicle Registration Number) can be checked against Vehicle Records at the DVLA and a fine can be issued - less than 20 years ago, only the Police could do this - now, any 'thug' with a 'Parking Enforcement' licence can access this Data Base (if they have 'legitimate' reason). Sadly, one is not able to scrutinise their 'validity' to do so!

Whilst the MPs in Westminster are keen to not reveal just how much they are 'screwing the tax-payer' for their own personal gain, they seem very willing to allow private companies, free access to far too much information. I used to be an RAF Intelligence officer and what I see happening, is not down to 'Security', but simply another way of extracting money from the populace and controlling people. All people are born equal, but some, are more equal than others! Animal Farm?

---

Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!

The incessant references to Orwell tickle my funny bone. Have any of you ever studied his politics and his non fiction writings? I imagine not. Of course the ones I read in here that use his name in condemning "oppression by the state" are themselves whole hearted statists.

Have a google moment and read his endorsements of nazi germany. Fun!




I especially was amused by the challenge to my statement about the U.S. and its allies being freer nations than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Normally I'd think I am being trolled if not for the fact I've been reading your posts for well over a year.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Abnd abut "Big Bad Bush" - LOL... every one who is not blinded by the private media knows that Georgie-boy is only as mighty as his buddies, the businessmen in the lobbies, let him be.
Well, I would take no bet that there is more 5% of the people in any Western government (also in the US Congress) who are not open for an "extra donation" even though that's bound to a condition...
Big companies support the politicians, then they expect that the music is played which they payed for.., like: Decide as we want or you don't get these donations anymore, or: we supported you financially during your rally, now we expect a favor from you - that's normal for capitalism.

No, actually. It is normal for statism and your quasi fascist brand of socialism. You're condemning aspects of the present U.S. political landscape that are products of the system YOU endorse.

In capitalism there are not these kinds of push pull pressure group warfares. They're not possible. There's nothing to buy from the government because the private interests are just that, private. The government would serve the objective function of protecting those private rights not holding them hostage to greedy grubby incompetent socialists. You'll never understand of course. I'm typing for the benefit of others.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Have any of you ever studied his politics and his non fiction writings?

There you go again, trying to confuse the issue...

George Orwells books may have been fictional at the time, but today they are a reality...

George Orwells autobiography is irrelevant to that fact... ;)

(I know the tactic well, people do the same thing with scripture.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Have any of you ever studied his politics and his non fiction writings?

There you go again, trying to confuse the issue...

George Orwells books may have been fictional at the time, but today they are a reality...

George Orwells autobiography is irrelevant to that fact... ;)

(I know the tactic well, people do the same thing with scripture.)

Again you dodge the issue....as a muslim that has continuously maligned jews you might want to rethink how you portray yourself when your objective is unclear.....

I just don't have a high tolerance for jew haters and the whole Jihaad thing.....call me qwaaazy

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

<--- Has an unbelievably high tolerance for devils... ;)

(Devil = liar, accuser, self pleaser, deceiver. And of course, mischievous and charismatic.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

---

Account frozen...

I agree.....the doctrine you espouse requires the common man to NOT think

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I agree.....the doctrine you espouse requires the common man to NOT think

Quite the opposite, buddy. i never condoned anyone who tried to tell the people what to think.
On the other hand - You don't know what DOCTRINE if any I really "espouse".

---

Account frozen...

Snip
"I especially was amused by the challenge to my statement about the U.S. and its allies being freer nations than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

What ever difference there was is getting less and less by the day. It's not just our political freedoms that are being eroded it's all the petty restrictions on our personal freedoms that are being enacted in the name of "safety", to "protect" us, to prevent us from being "offended" and in Australia the favourite excuse ATM is "to protect the children" (and I'm not referring to Pedo laws here).

Most of the laws being proposed are at the same level as those quoted in a recent "Stupid Law" thread in the Cafe Seti Forum.

You would probably have found that provided you were careful what you said and who you said it too, life in Iraq for the general population was not much different to life in the "free" West and a damn sight better than what it is now.

"Normally I'd think I am being trolled ......."

Yeppo, it's a common feeling in this forum :-)

Brodo

Snip
"I especially was amused by the challenge to my statement about the U.S. and its allies being freer nations than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

What ever difference there was is getting less and less by the day. It's not just our political freedoms that are being eroded it's all the petty restrictions on our personal freedoms that are being enacted in the name of "safety", to "protect" us, to prevent us from being "offended" and in Australia the favourite excuse ATM is "to protect the children" (and I'm not referring to Pedo laws here).

Most of the laws being proposed are at the same level as those quoted in a recent "Stupid Law" thread in the Cafe Seti Forum.

You would probably have found that provided you were careful what you said and who you said it too, life in Iraq for the general population was not much different to life in the "free" West and a damn sight better than what it is now.

"Normally I'd think I am being trolled ......."

Yeppo, it's a common feeling in this forum :-)

Brodo

Some of us consider freedom of speech to be a pretty BIG difference.

---

]

I agree.....the doctrine you espouse requires the common man to NOT think
Quite the opposite, buddy. i never condoned anyone who tried to tell the people what to think.
On the other hand - You don't know what DOCTRINE if any I really "espouse".

Don't ever ever ever call me your buddy. I'm not your buddy. I will never be your 'buddy'. Nobody should have such ill manners.

I'm not 'buddies' with people that do not believe I have a right to exist for my own purposes....

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

BrainSmasher Wrote
"Some of us consider freedom of speech to be a pretty BIG difference."

So just what do you consider "Freedom of Speech" ???

Just try publically saying anything that somebody (even just one person) can consider sexist, racist, homophobic, anti religion (any flavour), pro abortion, anti abortion, anti global warming, pro nuclear energy, anti war, pro war etc. etc. and you risk a law suit or being hauled before some semi government Commission or Tribunal. You may also suffer a concerted media attack of the ferocity once reserved for mass murderers and serial child molesters.

If your sole criteria for "Freedom of Speech" is being able to criticise your country's leaders then you have a very narrow definition and a very narrow world view. As I stated before, some of the clauses in the various "anti-terrorism" acts definitely limit our "Freedom of Speech" as much Saddam ever did in Iraq

Brodo
PS. I liked your old avatar better :-)